Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Jun 29, 2010 5:59am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Are any of these titles in the Public Domain?

Good to see you back VideoCellar.

I'm not sure what you mean here:

>>The registration was accepted because an ammended print contatining a copyright notice superimposed under the title was submitted.<<
Submitting a print with new matter is sufficient to get copyright. The notice is an added bonus but under the 1978 law, not having it would not immediately have made it PD.

>> It was also lodged as a derivative work from a registered, unpublished script, which under some court decisions could be seen to have been published to the public domain in so much as it was included in a film published into the public domain. But this is considered a grey area of copyright law.<<

If the script was registered separately, then any film based on it could not be PD because the underlying work (the script) would be under copyright. The film could only be PD if the script was registered *after* the film was published. But in that case the entire script would not be eligible to be registered. The only possibility would be to register parts of the script that had not been included in the film. Where is the grey area?



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jun 29, 2010 11:58pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Are any of these titles in the Public Domain?

An unpublished registration for copyright in a pre-1978 work could be rendered invalid by publication without notice. The grey area of law is whether the inclusion of the script in a published film constitutes publication of the script. Some case law says yes. Some case law says no.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2010-06-30 06:58:20

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Jun 30, 2010 12:01pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Are any of these titles in the Public Domain?

re: grey areas. I'll have to disagree. I think the Batjac vs Goodtimes Court of Appeals ruling on the John Wayne film McClintock was the definitive answer to this. It ruled that when a film falls into the public domain so does the underlying script

Here was the losing argument that tried to claim otherwise:

>>...Bajac’s argument amounts to the view that “the publication of the movie McLintock! had no effect on its ‘common law’ copyright in the unpublished screenplay for McLintock!, because the screenplay itself was not published. Furthermore, petitioner [Batjac] claims that (even though its statutory copyright in the movie McLintock! has expired) its rights in the screenplay for McLintock! give it the right to control the movie McLintock!, since the movie incorporates protected elements from the screenplay. The district court and court of appeals properly rejected that argument....<<

The following probably more relevant

>>“[I]f a previously unpublished screenplay is embodied in a motion picture, so much of the screenplay as is disclosed in the motion picture is published when the motion picture is published.” (Quotation from Certiorari to Supreme Court (1998) regarding Batjac v. Goodtimes (9th Cir., 1998), reporting that this Appeals Court resolved the issue in the same way as had occurred in Shoptalk, Ltd. v. Concorde-New Horizons Corp., 168 F.3d 586 (2d Cir. 1999). The former case involved the unpublished screenplay of McLintock! (1963), the latter that of Little Shop of Horrors (1960). The Supreme Court chose not to schedule an appeal.)

The “Compendium of Copyright Office Practices under the 1976 Act” is an in-house document used in the Copyright Office to guide employees in their work. This document, at § 910.04 (1984 edition), states: “The inclusion of an unpublished work in another work that is later published results in the publication of the first work to the extent that it is disclosed in the published work.”
As Example 1, the Compendium states: “Where a preexisting unpublished screenplay is embodied in a motion picture, those elements of the screenplay disclosed in the motion picture are considered to be published at the same time as the motion picture is published.”
The “Compendium of Copyright Office Practices under the 1909 Act” (1977 edition), at § 3.1.1 IV.a., states: “Publication of a portion of a work does not necessarily mean that the work as a whole has been published”<<

from:
http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c10E.html


This post was modified by HektorT on 2010-06-30 19:01:40

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: anh Mike Date: Jul 9, 2010 11:16am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Are any of these titles in the Public Domain?

I wonder how much this guy thought he would make off John Wayne movie. 1998 probably would have pulled in more money than now. The court costs were not worth the value of the movie in profits, at least in my opinion.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jul 10, 2010 7:27am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Are any of these titles in the Public Domain?

I think that they had seen some companies successfully recapture copyrights through underlying rights and thought that they would be able to follow and get back exclusive distribution. It didn't work out that was an they did end up having to shell out a few hundred thousand dollars in costs.

The legal action regarding McLintock was originally between MPI home Video (Maljack Productions Inc) and Goodtimes Home Video and eventually between the Batjac Productions (lead by the films producer, and John Wayne's son, Michael Wayne) and GoodTimes and the Registrar of Copyrights. It was instigated a couple of years after the film entered the public domain due to non-renewal.

These are some of the arguments Maljack and Batjac covered in the long process. In the end they were really grasping at straws trying to regain control of the picture.

-Music: that Batjac had the exclusive right to synchronise the copyright soundtrack to the film and that GoodTimes video had no rights to synchronise the music even though it had sought a new licence from the music publisher (EMI-UA Catalogue). The court found that the synchronisation of music is included in the motion picture copyright and that use of copyright music in a public domain film does not infring mechanical copyright if a direct from the publisher or compulsory licence is used.

-Script: They claimed that the film was based on an unpublished screenplay which was also later turned into a comic book. The court ruled that as much of the screenplay that was presented in the film was published with the film and the later publication of a comic book based on the script did not make the film derivative of a literary work.

-Common Law trademark and propety claims: They claimed that McLintock was a common law trademark that was infringed by Goodtimes' use. The court rejected this outright. They also made property claim, claiming that GoodTimes illegally accessed Batjac's vault print to make their video master. This was rejected by the court on the basis that more than one print survives.

They eventually got some satisfaction when PD distributor UAV copied the MPI video for a release. Maljack and Batjac successfully argued that panning and scanning a widescreen film creates a new audio visual work which is the subject of copyright.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Jul 10, 2010 7:06am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Are any of these titles in the Public Domain?

One of the reasons that public domain law is as vague as it is, is that few cases ever get to court. If a big Hollywood film studio puts a Cease & Desist on you, most peole think it makes sense to Desist, so there is never a trial and the law doesn't become any clearer. If Batjac vs Goodtimes never went to court, a lot of stuff would never clearly be PD and the studios would continue to claim rights to it. Maybe Batjac did this because they thought they could make money and maybe they did it because the thought that a legal precedent needed to be set, and they could afford it. There are sometimes cases where the cost of legal counsel is much less than you would expect either because one of the defendants is a lawyer or because the law firm agrees to do pro bono. In any case, in 1998 it was not at all clear that protecting your riht to continue to sell VHS home video would mean you also protect, ten years later, the rights of every tom dick and harry with a dvd ripping software and an internet connection to sell download copies of that movie or broadcast it online for free. It's a different world now.

If you scour the web a bit, you'll see that McClintock is often included on a list of Favorite John Wayne films. That shows the value of the Public Domain. I'd be willing to bet that McClintock is watched more than any other non-PD John Wayne film (it's the only PD JW film in color). When something is free it is available to the masses. People living in India who make a few hundred dollars a month and speak fluent english can watch McClintock when they wonder what John Wayne is all about.

Ask people to name a horror film? How often does "Night of the Living Dead" come up? Same story. It's PD, plus it is good.

Maybe it would be a good idea for somebody like the EFF to set up a legal defense fund and choose one or two PD cases a year to defend, to help keep things honest and ensure that the law continues to evolve and/or become more clear.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Jun 29, 2010 11:30pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Are any of these titles in the Public Domain?

I knew there was some reason why I either took it down or didn't put it up in the first place. But I did see the info when I checked with USCO last night.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)